Drag wrote:
If they just upgrade to SDL 2.0, all of the violations are moot because SDL 2.0 changed their license to the zlib license. :P
Not exactly. If they upgraded to SDL 2.0, only the SDL violations I listed would become moot. The GPL violations would still exist.
tepples wrote:
In order to change to a license other than GPL, they'd have to get all contributors to agree to an exception for linking against BASS.
FCEUX could change to any other license if they wanted but they'd have to release a new version under that license (i.e. they can't go and change the license used in already-publicly-released versions), and they'd have to get permissions from
all contributors who contributed code to FCEUX to switch to whatever license. TL;DR -- you can absolutely switch away from the GPL at any time if you wish but you have to get permission to use the code written by each of the contributors (i.e. if the project has had 12 contributors, and 8 agree to switch to another license but 4 do not, the license can be switched but the code written by those 4 has to be removed or rewritten).
Reference (be sure to see the first response to the top comment; Laurence Gonsalves' point is mentioned further down in a reply to a separate comment)
Linking to BASS has no bearing WRT switching away from the GPL -- the BASS license is pretty much non-existent (
scroll down to Licensing). Instead their license is: "if you use BASS in something that's for commercial purposes you need to buy a license from us". FCEUX isn't commercial. Of course I have no idea how BASS does their implementation (e.g. is it a DLL you include, do they give you the entire source, etc.).
Linking to BASS.NET also has no bearing WRT switching away from the GPL -- they could still keep releasing FCEUX with BASS.NET (free version) as long as their method of inclusion was including the Bass.Net.DLL file with both the binary and source releases. GPL v2.1
covers/permits this here, although somewhat sketchy (e.g. do you really need BASS.NET when another audio library with a more GPL-friendly license could be used or you could write the code yourself?). For the commercial license of BASS.NET used with FCEUX it's a different story --
this then applies, re: having to make an exception, and there's no point in going down that road anyway.
Every time I have to go digging through the GPL (and licensing shit in general, but mainly with the GPL), the more I cry inside. As I told someone here on the forum privately (who was asking me about licensing in their own software): I appreciate what the FSF and Stallman is trying to do, meaning the concept/belief, but I just don't think it's pragmatic or reasonable -- more specifically I don't like having to comply with someone else's belief system when it comes to my software. That's why I use other licenses. But some people have the same belief as Stallman, and that's fine -- I just don't think it's entirely "reasonable" (not sure how else to phrase it).